Steve Averill Q & A - 2 seperate Albums and re-issue of the complete backcatalogue?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Michael Griffiths said:

I love it, too. It's ironic how 'One' is the most played U2 song at weddings...
and 'Every Breath You Take'

Michael Griffiths said:

The difference is, I actually read how the band feels about the songs, and where they came from, where the DJ you are writing about obviously hadn't heard anything from Chris Cornell...

Yeah, but don't believe everything you read either... Like I said, none of us were in the room when these songs were recorded, and better yet none of us were in their heads. It's easy to sit back afterwards and describe 'One' as a cathartic song that eased them through some tentions, but it could have been just as labored and "calculated" as anything else in their catalogue.

Chris Cornell could have easily said yeah man you really get it, and that moment could have gone down as the time Chris explained 'BHS'. I mean we've heard Bono slowly change what songs mean or where they came from.

That's my whole point, I keep hearing people say U2 were less focused on making a hit and more focused on art in year ____ but are more focused on making a hit and less focused on the art in year ____. And it's bullshit.

When I listen to ATYCLB and HTDAAB I hear a band trying different things. I hear a band that's trying a little Motown and old 50s style of building an album. I hear a lyricists that is trying to tackle similar themes he's done in the past and new themes but with a more straight forward lyric style. I don't hear anything that was throwback... And I don't hear anything that was all that safe...

Now those new things may have not worked out as well as other experiments and vice versa.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Yeah, but don't believe everything you read either... Like I said, none of us were in the room when these songs were recorded, and better yet none of us were in their heads. It's easy to sit back afterwards and describe 'One' as a cathartic song that eased them through some tentions, but it could have been just as labored and "calculated" as anything else in their catalogue.

[...]

That's my whole point, I keep hearing people say U2 were less focused on making a hit and more focused on art in year ____ but are more focused on making a hit and less focused on the art in year ____. And it's bullshit.



i agree. wholeheartedly.

there is every bit the level of calculation behind "one" and "streets" as there is behind "sometimes." and i have to disagree with the "bomb" songs not having any resonance. i find OOTS intensely personal and it deftly combines several different emotions -- regret, hope, potential, possibility, awareness of limitations -- and it has a sonic "clench" at the end that's the equal to anything on AB. again, i find parts of MD and COBL viscerally thrilling in a way that i don't think AB thrills, and i would point to the reworked "kite" as a song that's now the equal of "one," and perhaps even surpasses it in a live setting.

i would agree that the production on "bomb" sounds a bit tight, a bit constipated, but i would fault Lillywhite, or perhaps we have to realize just how great Eno/Lanois are. what i don't agree with is that U2 have changed and they don't care and they just want a hit song and that they're somehow less worthy now that they're mega wealthy involved dads. for me, i prefer that they're not trying to say the same thing that they did when they were 20 or 30. it might mean less to you, but that doesn't mean, objectively, that it's any less meaningful.

and that's where taste comes in. but i think we are trying to go beyond taste here, and i think that's an important discussion to have. and what i think we're also getting into is a vein of snobbery that some people have towards those who 1) don't think Pop is actually all that good, and 2) actually like "behind" and "bomb."

in fact, to flip this on it's head, i'd argue that people who find great art in a song like, say, "Promenade" are guilty of some wishful thinking, the kind that i was totally guilty of when i was in high school and i thought everything Bono ever said, thought, or did was genius and should be written on t-shirts everywhere. i can listen to half of UF and think that half of it is crap. i can listen to War and want Bono to calm down and stop jumping up and down and fretting so, it's annoying. i can listen to JT and wonder just how many fire/rain/dust metaphors we can get away with, and i can listen to Pop and hear just how weak the songs actually are and how "velvet dress" is a total failure, how the reworked IGWSHA is a big improvement from the album version, how LNOE is about as unoriginal as anything they've ever recorded. i can say that "stuck" has the most blissful chorus they've ever recorded, "kite" in a live setting moves grown men to tears, COBL is their best opening song ever, etc.

so much of this is taste, i agree. but i think we're all best served by trying to take each album from the band's perspective and trying to meet them where they are instead of having them try and repeat what it was that made us fall in love with them in the first place.

i think this is the question: are you listening to Achtung Baby, or are you listening to U2?
 
Bonovoxsupestar:

I hear all those things as well, when I hear the last two albums. I don't think they were trying to play safe insofar as not trying new things. The style of writing is far more calculated and pre-laid out. They actually WRITE the music before recording it now, amazing that! But there is a price to pay in that the "magic", the essense of not quite being sure what's going on, where it's coming from and where it's going exactly.... The process of discovery can itself be the magic at times. And to any inexperienced artist, this aspect is crucial.

Bono once said that innocence is more powerful than experience. For me it probably has been when listening to U2's music. But this brings me to the crux of this discussion: Looks as though in the end it's all about what we prefer. Personal preference. I enjoy ATYCB for its joy. No other U2 album feels like a warm blanket on a cloudy day. That is why I don't mind the simplification and pre-thoughtout chord structures. That's the same reason the Beatles could get away with their early pop songs for me (again, we're talking preferences, here). Yet with their last album, with the exception of a couple songs (like 'Crumbs', possibly my favourite), the structures were just as well crafted, technically (as an album, one of their strongest ever), yet it was emotionally forced (once again, for me). Thus the album leaves me wanting a little more, despite its technical savy.

For me, music is all about how it makes me feel. That's it. It has to move me up and down, left to right, in and out...and what I love about many of U2's albums is that not only do they do this, but they also take my spirit down reveens and forests, deserts of light and mountains of shadow. So much dimension. If it cannot do this, then I go to an album like ATYCB, because it still brings me joy. Sorry if I got a little carried away, but this is the way I see it based on how the music makes me feel.
 
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths said:
Bonovoxsupestar:

I hear all those things as well, when I hear the last two albums. I don't think they were trying to play safe insofar as not trying new things. The style of writing is far more calculated and pre-laid out. They actually WRITE the music before recording it now, amazing that! But there is a price to pay in that the "magic", the essense of not quite being sure what's going on, where it's coming from and where it's going exactly.... The process of discovery can itself be the magic at times. And to any inexperienced artist, this aspect is crucial.

Bono once said that innocence is more powerful than experience. For me it probably has been when listening to U2's music. But this brings me to the crux of this discussion: Looks as though in the end it's all about what we prefer. Personal preference. I enjoy ATYCB for it's joy. No other U2 album feels like a warm blanket on a cloudy day. That is why I don't mind the simplification and pre-thoughtout chord structures. That's the same reason the Beatles could get away with their early pop songs for me (again, where talking preferences, here). Yet with their last album, with the exception of a couple songs (like 'Crubs'), the structures were just as well crafted, technically (as an album, one of their strongest ever), yet it was emotionally forced (once again, for me). Thus the album leaves me wanting a little more, despite its technical savy.

For me, music is all about how it makes me feel. That's it. It has to move me up and down, left to right, in and out...and what I love about many of U2's albums is that not only do they do this, but they also take my spirit down reveens and forests, deserts of light and mountains of shadow. So much dimension. If it cannot do this, then I go to an album like ATYCB, because it still brings me joy. Sorry if I got a little carried away, but this is the way I see it based on how the music makes me feel.

I'm not sure where you are getting the "calculated and pre-laid out" thing. As far as actually writing before they record now, where did you get this from? I'm pretty sure almost every album has songs that were written before coming into the studio and some that were written in the studio. Exceptions being their first albums, a young band can't afford to just jam in the studio. But with the exception of maybe Achtung Baby, every album I'm pretty sure they started with a few songs either that Edge wrote or Bono wrote and brought to the band or were left over from previous albums. So I haven't seen any information that show ATYCLB or Bomb was all written before they came into the studio. :huh:

I understand the term "emotionally forced" I'm just trying to figure out what that really means when using it with Bomb?
 
So, I stopped reading this thread a day and a half ago, and now I think I have to set aside the whole weekend to get back into it!
 
Michael Griffiths said:

I'm not sure if your post was directed at me at all, or as a general reaction to other posts, but if it was at me... I have no conception of this 80s vs 90s vs 2000s thing, either. To me the album Pop has far more in common with their 2000s albums than AB or Zooropa. As for the "art vs cash" thing, also a separate issue from anything I was discussing.

As far as how long it takes to record a song (like 'Streets' for example), I really don't think it should matter. It's how the song was born, the inspiration that brought it into being. If that magic is there, and isn't sliced and diced in the production process, than take 10 years and make it even better if that's what it needs.

A little bit of both probably.

Ha! Try telling that about Pop to its fiery defenders.

Well, it matters to some obviously. We keep hearing how the last two albums were laboured etc but so was AB at the time. So was, probably, JT as well. I think you want it both ways: keep the magic and the inspiration, but on the other hand work as long as necessary on the song. But once you do hundreds of takes on a song, you will most likely get something different than the original magic. Maybe better, maybe not.
 
It'd be interesting to hear what Hawkmoon 1-268 sounded like. :hmm:


(more substantial replies coming this weekend! ;) )
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I'm not sure where you are getting the "calculated and pre-laid out" thing. As far as actually writing before they record now, where did you get this from? I'm pretty sure almost every album has songs that were written before coming into the studio and some that were written in the studio. Exceptions being their first albums, a young band can't afford to just jam in the studio. But with the exception of maybe Achtung Baby, every album I'm pretty sure they started with a few songs either that Edge wrote or Bono wrote and brought to the band or were left over from previous albums. So I haven't seen any information that show ATYCLB or Bomb was all written before they came into the studio. :huh:

I understand the term "emotionally forced" I'm just trying to figure out what that really means when using it with Bomb?
Before ATYCLB was released, Bono did a couple interviews in which he said they decided to write the songs before recording them. They had Edge come with with chord structures and ideas and then would patch different ideas together, and create complete songs. U2 has done this in the past, but had never pre-arranged the overall songs to such a degree. Now they actually do their homework, as Adam Clayton puts it, and plot out most of the chord arrangments before hand. Bono has brought this point up again on a few occasions since in books and interviews. I think it was in the radio 1 interview last year, if I remember, in which he said the danger now is creating music that sounds "too professional", where that spontinaity is lost.

Anyway, if anyone has links to these interviews or can provide more examples, maybe you can post them for us?
 
Oh, I forgot to answer the second part... By "emotionally forced", I mean a song that has been reworked so much, that whatever original spark that may have been there has been saturated or removed by all the technicalities of fleshing out all the imperfections, by changing the structures, by changing the ideas, the lyrics, etc....and all the production, that eventually the song that is left does not reflect the original inspiration for that song. Everything has been flattened out. This is why it feels emotionally forced to me, I would guess. But I may be wrong. Perhaps it's also because I am almost two decades younger than Bono. Remember, I did say "emotionally forced" FOR ME. Music is by nature subjective. The irony is that, objectively, Bomb is one of U2's "best" records.
 
Well like I said many albums have had this done before, maybe not to the extent as these two, but they have always done this. But this doesn't mean they then don't deconstruct these songs over and over.

I think U2 are probably closer to writing albums the way MOST bands usually write albums. And this is probably scary uncharted territory for them, hence the comments of "too professional". Most bands don't write the albums in studio, most come in with the songs already mapped out.

I think the part that is uncomfortable for U2 is that coming in with ideas already written, doing the homework means less time in the studio, and that's why I think they spent so much time in production with this last one, and why it suffered. They probably finished the album in 2 months, but they look around "but we have the studio for 6 months, now what? Well let's tinker a little more."

U2 are probably now at a point where they could write and record very quick albums and release one every year or two, but I think that kind of scares them.
 
Michael Griffiths said:
Oh, I forgot to answer the second part... By "emotionally forced", I mean a song that has been reworked so much, that whatever original spark that may have been there has been saturated or removed by all the technicalities of fleshing out all the imperfections, by changing the structures, by changing the ideas, the lyrics, etc....and all the production, that eventually the song that is left does not reflect the original inspiration for that song. Everything has been flattened out. This is why it feels emotionally forced to me, I would guess. But I may be wrong. Perhaps it's also because I am almost two decades younger than Bono. Remember, I did say "emotionally forced" FOR ME. Music is by nature subjective. The irony is that, objectively, Bomb is one of U2's "best" records.

Of course the "emotional forced" aspect is subjective, I guess I was just looking for examples.

I think you are speculating on why it happened, but that doesn't tell me anything. U2 songs get worked over all the time, Pride was originally about Ronald Reagan and a negative form of Pride and then turned into what we have today, ISHFWILF was apparently called "Girls in Jeeps" or something odd... Nowhere near the original inspirations but probably turned out a lot better than the originals.
 
U2girl said:
Ha! Try telling that about Pop to its fiery defenders.

Actually it's a point brought up fairly often by Pops 'fiery defenders' - that it's a straight out attempt at a commercial middle-ground pop-rock album, not some way off weird techno experimental whatever, as Pops haters often try to portray it. It is truly a halfway step between the two decades. Sonically it's all 90s, but structurally, and with it's overall aim, it's the first step into the 00s. I don't want to add a Pop debate to the mix in this thread, but understanding that it was a halfway record, an attempt at creating their own 'new' pop-rock niche sound, and that, in the end, being one of if not completely it's major flaw, is pretty much the key to a lot of pro-Pop arguments, and understanding of everything that has come afterwards. They wanted it then, they didn't get it with that, so they did it with this. Tried to build something new sort of from scratch, didn't work, went back and built it from what they knew, and what they knew the public knew. Create a new box and call it U2's - or take U2 and put it in that box over there.
 
Earnie Shavers said:


Actually it's a point brought up fairly often by Pops 'fiery defenders' - that it's a straight out attempt at a commercial middle-ground pop-rock album, not some way off weird techno experimental whatever, as Pops haters often try to portray it.



really? i always took it slightly differently. i thought the Pop-worshippers believe the album to be brilliant and daring and thrilling and wildly experimental and devil-may-care, when in reality it is just what you say it is -- a middle-ground rock album with some shiny beats. in retrospect, is the most bandwagon-jumping of all U2 albums, and while there's loads of interesting stuff to listen to, and some great songs, as well as some heavy themes, it's just not very successful at pulling off what it wants to accomplish.

if people love the songs, that's great, i won't argue. but if people love it because it's "daring" and "brave," well, i don't really think it is all that much.
 
It's a bit of both really. It's definitely, definitely not bandwagon jumping because Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Passengers exist before it. You can't have 3 albums of mucking around inch by inch with straight out electronica and/or simply 'rock with hips', and then suddenly claim on the 4th album that it's just a cheap stunt. It's a different sound, but post the lighter euro-electro Zooropa, the heavier and darker themes of those Pop songs demanded that heavier stressful, pained sound on Pop. That the Chemical Bros etc were the sound of the moment is fine, it's not like U2 hadn't danced around the sound of the moment at several points earlier, it's too their credit that they've never been afraid to incorporate what is new around them to suit their needs at the time, and it's understandable that whatever it is you are listening to a lot of will either creep in subtly or utterly dominate the ideas swirling in your head.

It's not wildly experimental, and I personally argue against that tag all the time. I don't think there's much in U2's catalogue that is greatly more experimental than anything else before or after it. I don't really see the difference between Edge mucking around with euro electro-beats on Zooropa, and Edge mucking around with the blues on R&H. Or U2 using Howie B and a heavy electro thump to drag their songs down into the manic traffic jam on Pop, and U2 using Brian Eno and some synthesized backing to take their songs up into the open stratosphere on The Unforgettable Fire. Influence and experimentation is relative, and really in the end with U2 it's all relatively surface level, whether it's messing with a genre, or messing with a certain technology, or messing with a current sonic influence. I mean, tell me what the huge difference between Bullet the Blue Sky and Mofo is? There's none really - from the driving bass line, to the drum snaps, to Bono growling, to the guitar screams. Re-invention is U2's game, not wild experimentation.

If it's 'daring' and 'brave' it is for the exact same reasons ATYCLB is. Read Bono's quotes leading into and promoting Pop, and read them leading into and promoting ATYCLB. They are essentially the same: Rock is stale, we want to reclaim it. Stop staring at your toes and pretending you hate it. Think big and ambitious and bright and bold. Take big songs and send them global. They thought then that there was a niche there for them to claim. That the way to save rock was to reinvent it. Later with ATYCLB they took the other path - don't try for something new to take on the world, reintroduce the world to it the way it is at it's root goodness.

It's why now Bono says that if you just imagine Discotheque was a huge global hit, you can see how the rest of Pop and their ambitions for Pop fall into place. I agree. I also always say that I think Pop is no complete disaster, that it's actually only within an inch of being as perfect a U2 album as they've ever done. Some think the thing needs a complete overhaul or should never have even been attempted, I think it simply needs an extra couple of weeks of more careful editing and mixing and that it's biggest curse came long before the first note of it was heard. The story doing the rounds long before that U2 are making a dance/techno album, and the fact that U2 were releasing anything in 1997 which such open and naked ego and ambition - an absolutely toxic year to be the biggest band in the world attempting the biggest album in the world backed by the biggest tour in the world - were setting them up for disaster. It's another thing they corrected pre-ATYCLB. I think with Pop it's those three key elements: Take the extra month to fix it's glitches. The songs do not need the reworking they got for Best Of's etc, they just need 10% more effort in the production/mixing/editing. Shoot down any dance/techno/wildly weird shit early. Talk it up as a rock record to counter that if you must. Upon release, take it softly softly and let the music speak for itself. No Kmart press conference. No dicky Discotheque clips. No ego. Do as with ATYCLB - take the songs to some small clubs for a few gigs. Focus it on the music. Then if/once Discotheque was that global hit - NOW start talking all your world domination, reclaim rock, biggest band in the world shit. NOW announce this ridiculously oversized tour from the lingerie department of Kmart. Just a few small changes here and there and Pop (and Popmart) would have had a far softer landing, a greatly different reception, and an utterly opposite place in their history.

So yes, after going off the path a bit there, in summary: It was daring and brave because it was the first time perhaps since Boy that U2 walked into a studio and didn't just want to make a great album that in some way propels themselves forward, be it career wise or musical growth wise or whatever, but actually expected to walk into that studio, take rock itself by the balls and walk out the otherside with something that changes the face of it forever. It was with the same naivety and a sort of innocence that they had when they started out, but mixed with the confidence of having kicked arse at everything in between. Especially immediately beforehand where they'd destroyed and rebuilt themselves completely, again to stunning success. It created the ego and arrogance that ultimately is what led to Pops downfall. The ambition and intent, and what is actually there on the disc, is perfectly admirable. It IS identical to ATYCLB in that regard. Whether musically they were ever on the right path or not, we'll never know. A large chunk of rock definitely has taken a danceable electro inspired or embedded influence in this decade - they were definitely right about that, and the colour and ambition is most certainly back (I mean, you couldn't imagine any other 90s generated band fronting the Popmart stage, but there are loads today - eg the Killers - who match an oversized McDonalds arch and cocktail stick). But who knows whether or not in 1997, regardless personal feelings on degrees of quality, an album like that would have ever taken off for them.

The big, main, huge difference though is that the birth of Pop at the very least needed the modesty and humility they brought to the birth of ATYCLB. Switch the arrogance of Pop to ATYCLB and it would have failed too. Switch the humility of ATYCLB to Pop and it stood a great chance.

In a sense it's, "Looking for a sound that's gonna drown out the weather" vs "I'm just trying to find a decent melody, a song that I can sing, in my own company."
 
Last edited:
Earnie Shavers said:
In a sense it's, "Looking for a sound that's gonna drown out the weather" vs "I'm just trying to find a decent melody, a song that I can sing, in my own company."



a very interesting post, and not a whole lot i disagree with. my issue has never been with Pop -- we agree it's no masterpiece, but fascinating, certainly -- my issue is with those who slag off 00's U2.

i think you've summed the differences between the albums up perfectly. i agree that Pop was crushed under the weight of it's own ambitions, that sound that's gonna drown out the world. but sometimes, the "better" work is done when you color between the lines. i think that, until it kind of falls apart at the end, ATYCLB is the equal of AB and JT up through "wild honey." perhaps it collapses under its own ambition, that of naked sincerity and warmth with the almost parodic "peace on earth" and the not-quite-there "new york" the kind of ho-hum "look at the world" and the kind of awful "grace." but, pound for pound, ATYCLB is simply more successful than Pop.

and i think that if they could have pulled off Pop, it would have been extraordinary, but i guess i do think it was bandwagon-y. sure, AB and Z had hips and sex (finally!) and beats, but i was turned on to so much of what U2 was listening to in the late 90s -- Underworld, especially, as well as Chemical Brothers, Portishead, etc. -- that i began to notice that Pop was more imitative-of whereas AB and Z were more inspired-by.

but, ultimatley, there was something weirdly unemotional about it all. it was cold. it was icy. that's what dance music is. it's about the individual getting lost in the beat, the surrender of the ego to the throb, whereas U2 had always been about community and connection. compare PopMart to Zoo TV. ZT was simply more emotional than PM because one used technology to inspire a connection, the other used it to overwhelm. dance music also stands in opposition to rock music. techno, especially as it existed in the late 1990s and the rise of rave culture (and i wrote papers on this) was about subverting the traditional singer/audience (and, to be less kind, master/slave) dynamic in a rock concert. one is community, the other is individuality. one exists to be played and shared with one another, the other exists in the moment only and the moment it is replicated and put on a disc it suddenly becomes insipid and bland. it's really only *good* at that moment, in the disco, on E, with all those colors.

i've been to raves, i've been to U2 shows, and while i admire the ambition to marry the two, it seems like an impossible mission.

so ... for whatever that's worth. perhaps a whole lotta hot air ... :wink:
 
Irvine511 said:

if people love it because it's "daring" and "brave," well, i don't really think it is all that much.

Actually, it may be hard to remember now, but in 1997, the album was definitely daring and brave. Unfortunately it was daring and brave in all the wrong ways -- unfinished songs, poor production, uncertain marketing. I remember listening to it, particularly after having absorbed "AB" through practically every skin follicle, and thinking, "Meh."
 
First of all, I can't believe after writing all that I quoted Mofo's lyrics incorrectly.

Secondly, I still contest that the dance/techno element of Pop is drastically overstated. It's influence on that album in most parts is truly on the outskirts, not at the front, despite the poor mixing telling you that it is. Sure, there's Mofo, and sure, there's sampling and loops all the way through, but in the end it's mostly just used to give the songs weight and atmosphere. e.g Do You Feel Loved uses plenty of tricks and loops, but it's a straight up rock song in the end. Along with Discotheque, it is pre-00's their most straight forward middle of the road rock hit attempt. Where the influence of the day truly comes in is giving the bottom end a 'boom' that will shake anything sitting on your dashboard. It is far less wholly handing its self over to the influence than a number of songs on Zooropa. I think the same can be said for many of Pops songs: Staring at the Sun, Gone, If God Will Send His Angels, Please, Wake Up Dead Man, the gorgeous If You Wear that Velvet Dress... It's in there in all of them, but I don't think it's that far more or less prominent or important to the basic song than it is on Achtung or Zooropa. I think that's more due to the muddied up production making the songs sound more confusing than they really are, or incorrectly giving those parts more weight than they really hold. It's kind of what I'm trying to say about giving it just that 10% more. Fix up the very obvious mistakes in the production and mixing (and editing - which in it's joltiness again give it a far more electronic rather than organic feel then is necessary) and the true nature of the songs would shine ahead of everything else. As it stands it does sound muddy and bottom heavy, choppy and cut'n'paste - it's someone in a job interview trying to convince you that they're punctual and organised, but the big patch they missed shaving and the breakfast on their shirt overshadows it. It needs remastering, not reworking. IMO just pulling that knob up a bit, and this one down a bit, and the entire album changes instantly. You can hear it in the re-worked versions, ignoring some awful structural changes. Any and all of *that* influence is still completely there, but the songs take on a different feel simply in most part due to a better mix and a few obvious mistakes corrected.

I do, otherwise, agree wholeheartedly on your take of ATYCLB, track for track there too, and I'm not trying to 'change your mind' over Pop. I think your take on it is perfectly fine and obviously to dislike it is completely understandable. It is seriously flawed and unfinished - virtually every track has some really obvious problem. It's an extremely frustrating listen even when you love it as much as I do. I just think that in reality it wasn't the complete and total disaster from the get-go and/or naked attempt at cool that it is often seen as (nor an out and out dance/techno album). I do think it and ATYCLB are borne of the exact same ambition, and that while Pop certainly isn't 'right', it was far, far closer to right than people generally give it credit. I think that's why with time, as we've seen the changes since then, both with U2 and with the music landscape in general, Pop is starting subtly to get a bit of a re-write in history, from fans, critics and the band alike. I think more people see it as a genuine leap of ambitious faith that fell on it's face at the last corner, rather than some blind folly whose only ambition was 'cool', as has been it's general by-line for most of the decade since. I think anyone who tries to claim that as it stands, it's up there with Achtung, JT or even ATYCLB is crazy. But I also think that anyone who can't see how with just a few tweaks here and there it would come damn close to that holy duo, need to just sit down, forget the hype, forget the image, forget the disasters, forget it's reception, forget everything you've read and known about it for 10 years since and listen to it song after song, listen to those songs through the poor noise of a rushed and incomplete album that climbed up 90% of the way before slipping and falling. One after another after another it is all sitting there soooo agonisingly close to the surface.
 
[q]Where the influence of the day truly comes in is giving the bottom end a 'boom' that will shake anything sitting on your dashboard. It is far less wholly handing its self over to the influence than a number of songs on Zooropa. I think the same can be said for many of Pops songs: Staring at the Sun, Gone, If God Will Send His Angels, Please, Wake Up Dead Man, the gorgeous If You Wear that Velvet Dress... It's in there in all of them, but I don't think it's that far more or less prominent or important to the basic song than it is on Achtung or Zooropa.[/q]



see, i think the difference is that they tried to create a song around an effect in these songs -- i.e., the "747" effect in Mofo -- and it worked to the detriment of the song. i'd say that sometimes the effects were cool (i still think the "woosh" in IGWSHA is amazing, and that's a criminally underrated song), but so much of it sounds so messy, especially, imho, "velvet dress," that it sounds like they just dont know what they're doing, and it all comes off as very, very cold. take "please." great song, complex, both musically and thematically, and a genuine show-stopper live. but on the record it comes off as about as warm as a chemistry textbook. it's easy to admire, but hard to love.

but, on the whole, i'm with you on about 90% of the way. i don't dislike Pop. not at all. i defended it vigorously in 1997 when the backlash (which was most of my friends) began, but i'll also acknowledge it's many flaws today in a way that i wouldn't back then.

i think we can agree that it's a near-miss.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
One after another after another it is all sitting there soooo agonisingly close to the surface.

which is why we are all still here.
we've heard it somewhat close - It's was there then.
and yet there is the elusive almost perfection we all crave.
I still think we are going to hear it. If it's even possible.
when U2 hears it of course.
and I know that only makes sense to me. :wink:
 
Irvine511 said:

see, i think the difference is that they tried to create a song around an effect in these songs -- i.e., the "747" effect in Mofo -- and it worked to the detriment of the song. i'd say that sometimes the effects were cool (i still think the "woosh" in IGWSHA is amazing, and that's a criminally underrated song), but so much of it sounds so messy, especially, imho, "velvet dress," that it sounds like they just dont know what they're doing, and it all comes off as very, very cold. take "please." great song, complex, both musically and thematically, and a genuine show-stopper live. but on the record it comes off as about as warm as a chemistry textbook. it's easy to admire, but hard to love.


Wow you just nailed my feelings of those songs, like to a T. I love the woosh(never heard anyone appreciate it), and love Please but think the album version sucks... Velvet good idea poorly executed.
 
Those comments, both yours and Irvines, are about the mixing and production though, not the songs themselves. You can always hear what they're attempting, but it's too often drowned out by what has been fucked up at the, I assume, very rushed mixing stage. Velvet Dress, IMO, is gorgeous in every way. The right idea, the right structure, probably the right execution (ie I think every note is in it's right place, the bass early on is nice, then when it drops out and Edge takes over it is absolutely sublime etc), but then it has this really awful muddy production that completely sinks the song unless you are listening to it through really high quality headphones. Just play it on the stereo and it's virtually, well, nothing.

I also love the woosh.
 
Irvine511 said:




really? i always took it slightly differently. i thought the Pop-worshippers believe the album to be brilliant and daring and thrilling and wildly experimental and devil-may-care, when in reality it is just what you say it is -- a middle-ground rock album with some shiny beats. in retrospect, is the most bandwagon-jumping of all U2 albums, and while there's loads of interesting stuff to listen to, and some great songs, as well as some heavy themes, it's just not very successful at pulling off what it wants to accomplish.

if people love the songs, that's great, i won't argue. but if people love it because it's "daring" and "brave," well, i don't really think it is all that much.

Exactly.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Those comments, both yours and Irvines, are about the mixing and production though, not the songs themselves. You can always hear what they're attempting, but it's too often drowned out by what has been fucked up at the, I assume, very rushed mixing stage. Velvet Dress, IMO, is gorgeous in every way. The right idea, the right structure, probably the right execution (ie I think every note is in it's right place, the bass early on is nice, then when it drops out and Edge takes over it is absolutely sublime etc), but then it has this really awful muddy production that completely sinks the song unless you are listening to it through really high quality headphones. Just play it on the stereo and it's virtually, well, nothing.

I also love the woosh.

But the way U2 writes you really cannot separate mixing/production stage from songwriting. They don't write songs then mix them. The mix is as much a part of the creative process for them as the playing of their instruments. They use mixes as inspiration for the continued development of the songs. For U2 the songwriting process doesn't end until the cd is mastered. On Pop they talked about how they were redoing backing vocals in the mastering suite. As Adam puts it a U2 record isn't finished until it is in the store. On the 90's albums especially the mix and production aspects were as important to the songs as any other part. Often the mix elements that people complain about are an important contributor to the mood or atmosphere of the songs. When you take those things away the songs become something else, the mood changes, and sometimes that can be good but also sometimes you loose something there.

Dana
 
Back
Top Bottom